Misunderstanding, or prejudice?

Rating: Null/10 (18 June 2003)

28 Days Later was one of those films you don't hear much about in the media - maybe the subject, combined with the rating, makes the media pay less attention to it than the usual blockbuster suspects. Or maybe they were quick to dismiss it as "just another zombie flick". This is a misunderstanding, fueled in part by prejudice.
I had the chance of watching the film without knowing anything about it, so my approach was as neutral as I can get. While I agree that the scenario is not perfect and that there are parts of the movie that needed some more work, 28 Days Later still remains as one of the year's best movies as far as I'm concerned.
Now I've read some pretty rushed remarks on the film which positively scream "prejudice" and "I haven't really seen the movie". One magazine complained that "undead zombies simply don't run". The fact that we're talking about ALIVE infected people here was obviously lost on the writer. Also a previous comment mentioned that there are no victims or cars on the streets. The fact that there was an exodus, which means people took their cars and drove away (apart from those who got jammed in some places like the tunnel), combined with the fact that the infected's victims become infected themselves explains it adequately I think. As for the soldiers' morale, that's the writer's opinion on the subject and it can't be so easily dismissed, since this is a situation in which no one can rationally foretell what they would do.
In my opinion, 28 Days Later is quite a fresh and realistic approach to a genre that's otherwise as stale as an undead zombie (which doesn't run). There are far worse movies out there (not the least of which was The Matrix Reloaded). In short, I recommend it to mature viewers looking for something better than the usual by-the-book films.